> The power grab that was done was with Congress abdicating their power into unelected bureaucracies to create and enforce rules with the force of law. What the supreme Court is saying is that Congress cannot abdicate their power into an unelected bureaucracy.
If you're talking about Congress giving power it doesn't actually have to an organization, then that's a totally different thing. It is not what I was talking about.
There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding delegation of implementation decisions from Congress to Executive. Therefore it is legal.
And if for some reason this is the one exception to the way our legal system works, where the lack of express permission means it is forbidden, isn’t it odd that the courts have the power to make this decision despite not having a written mandate.
This is absolutely a power grab, with the intent of “breaking the administrative state”, as Steve Brannon promised. It is not possible for 438 people to legislate the implementation details of every policy in the entire country on an ongoing basis. This is basically Make Rivers Flammable Again.
Citation needed. Separation of Powers would like a word with you.
Note that the phrase “separation of powers” does not appear in the Constitution.
Law as it applies to the conduct of people and organizations works this way in the Anglo common law world, yes. The constitution specifically and clearly states that the federal government is constrained in it's power to only those powers expressly outlined in it, and which branches have what powers.
So when investors delegate to the officers of the company the authority to write company policies and procedures, do you also consider this a power grab of some kind?
You mean, like the entire court system including the supreme court is?
The courts interpret Congress' laws and they aren't elected. So using your same logic then instead every question of law should be put back to Congress to clarify.
That sounds like a great way to ensure nothing ever gets done, right? Kinda like that's exactly what the supreme court's decision is counting on - a giant ddos against government agencies, crippling all regulations that stand today. It's absolutely a power grab and it's absolutely unjustified as it goes against what Congress, the one in charge of this area, wants.
After all, congress was just overridden by an unelected 3rd party. A clear farce and a bad joke if it wasn't real life.
It makes sense IMO that orgs like the FDA or EPA regulates health safety issues instead of politicians.
Does this block that from happening?
If the FDA said no, Valvoline cannot use a specific additive to their motor oil, we would all scratch our heads and say that's not the FDA's job, and they don't have the authority to do that. Under Chevron deference the courts would defer to the FDA and say yes, they have the experts to decide these things, who are we to second-guess the regulatory agency?
With this Supreme Court decision, courts will no longer automatically defer to the agencies.
What this ruling changed is exactly that Congress now does need to be exhaustively thorough otherwise the courts decide the matter, not the agencies
Chevron deference says that when the delegation is implicit but not explicit then you defer to the agency. So in the FDA example, there is no implicit authority to regulate motor oil.
Especially concerning complex topics such as EPA and FDA. People (voters) don’t understand these topics and neither do politicians. So how can we expect politicians to regulate these complex areas?
Sounds like corporations will just start to own the laws that are being passed even more.
Which promotes further consolidation of power and detrimental health effects for the population.
This is from the article. And I think you missed it. There's a chain of command and there's oversight and apparently, The Supreme Court wants to be at the top of both, like Putin and the likes. It's as bad for the USA as Putin is for Russia.
Can you be entirely sure that you are not subject to the same faults that you see in these people? Do you think they might see the same effect in you?
The power grab that was done was with Congress abdicating their power into unelected bureaucracies to create and enforce rules with the force of law. What the supreme Court is saying is that Congress cannot abdicate their power into an unelected bureaucracy. Congress can pass laws and the president can have people enforce those laws but those laws cannot be so broad as to say this unelected enforcement agency can literally write new laws in the form of regulations and then enforce them as if they were law without any kind of recourse. That is a fundamental violation of due process to say some agency was empowered with such broad authority and such broad scope that they can literally write any rule that they want and you must follow it.
To limit the agencies to actually enforcing the law that Congress passed and requiring that those laws be specific enough that they are not open to broad interpretation and redefinition is the opposite of a power grab. It is the limitation of unelected bureaucrats in their power. If Congress wishes to re-empower them they simply need to pass the laws. Those experts, as they claim in the article, have within their power to suggest new legislation for things they want to implement. Having them just be able to arbitrarily make any new rule that they want under a broad umbrella of you are empowered to protect the environment is akin to a dictatorship.